New report on climate change released today

[GenesisNemesis]

.

3. If CO2 was a problem, wind and solar wouldn't fix it.

This is actually correct. But nuclear power would fix it. Also it's actually only half correct, because human beings don't always come up with the best solutions to problems. Just because someone doesn't come up with the best solution to a problem, that doesn't mean a problem is not a problem.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

You're all acting just like religious fundamentalist when it's pointed out to them that homo sapiens are a just different evolutionary branch of the apes. They'll argue, with no justication at all mind, : if that is so, why are there still apes.

For the last time, these are the facts, agreed to by most of the honest scientists involved with geoscience.

Honest scientists?!

1. GW/CC is natural, has been since the very dawn of time and has produced severe ice ages at times and no ice at all for perhaps 80% of Earth's history.

1) When the poles are covered by water that isn't fairly isolated from the world's oceans there is no ice because the water equalizes the temperatures. We have polar caps because there is land to the south and restricted waters to the north, it has nothing to do with temperature.

2) Showing that there have been temperature fluctuations in the past doesn't prove the current changes are natural.
<pulls out gun, shoots angelo>
Officer, history will show that everyone dies. The vast majority of deaths can be proven to be natural. Why are you trying to charge me with murder since this is obviously like the others, a natural death?

2. Nothing unprecedented or dangerous has happened to the climate with the 40% CO2 increase since 1880.

We have driven many species to extinction by raising the temperature.

3. If CO2 was a problem, wind and solar wouldn't fix it. More detailed facts and arguments all fit within these three statements.

Here you are right.

The most convincing of these facts relate to past climate and today's solar and oceanic variables, not changes to concentration of a trace gas. [ a plant food ]

And here you go into la-la land, not the realm of reputable scientists.

All of the predicted catastrophes in the last 40 years or so that have been predicted by activists and outright snake oil merchants have failed to materialise. So much so, that the moniker global warming had to be quietly changed to climate change, so that even an elephant's excessive farting could be blamed on the new moniker. In all other spheres of science those wrongful claimants of GW/CC would be ignored or laughed out of town. Why aren't the snake oilers peer reviewed by real, proper scientists? Because it's more to do with politics and the redistribution of wealth by stealth!

The moniker was changed because warming also increases instability and deniers were trying to muddy the water by pointing out the cold swings rather than looking at the average.

I also note that you have never addressed the fact that the Earth currently has 14C of greenhouse effect.

 

[bilby]

Global Warming isn't Natural - and here's how we know

At this point, I often find that people are prone to proposing that some unknown mechanism exists that scientists haven’t found yet. This is, however, a logical fallacy known as ad hoc. You can’t just make up an unknown mechanism whenever it suits you. If that was valid, then you could always reject any scientific result that you wanted, because it is always possible to propose some unknown mechanism. Similarly, you can’t use the fact that scientists have been wrong before as evidence, nor can you argue that, “there are still things that we don’t understand about the climate, so I don’t have to accept anthropogenic climate change” (that’s an argument from ignorance fallacy). Yes, there are things that we don’t understand, but we understand enough to be very confident that we are causing climate change, and, once again, you can’t just assume that all of our current research is wrong.

The key problem here is the burden of proof. By claiming that there is some other natural mechanism out there, you have just placed the burden of proof squarely on your shoulders. In other words, you must provide actual evidence of such a mechanism. If you cannot do that, then your argument is logically invalid and must be rejected.


Summary/Conclusion
Let’s review, shall we?

We know that it’s not the sun
We know that it’s not Milankovitch cycles
We know that it’s not volcanoes
We know that even when combined, natural causes cannot explain the current warming
We know that CO2 traps heat
We know that increasing CO2 causes more heat to be trapped
We know that CO2 was largely responsible for past climate changes
We know that we have roughly doubled the CO2 in the atmosphere
We know that the earth is trapping more heat now than it used to
We know that including anthropogenic greenhouse gasses in the models is the only way to explain the current warming trend

 

[laughing dog]

.

3. If CO2 was a problem, wind and solar wouldn't fix it.

This is actually correct. But nuclear power would fix it.

Nuclear power would mean no addition to the greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, so nuclear power would mean no additions to the greenhouse effect. But no known power source "fixes" the problem, because no known power source reduces the greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. With our current state of knowledge and technology, the best outcome we can hope for is to stabilize the change.

 

[bilby]

.

3. If CO2 was a problem, wind and solar wouldn't fix it.

This is actually correct. But nuclear power would fix it.

Nuclear power would mean no addition to the greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, so nuclear power would mean no additions to the greenhouse effect. But no known power source "fixes" the problem, because no known power source reduces the greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. With our current state of knowledge and technology, the best outcome we can hope for is to stabilize the change.

There are a number of ways to reduce the amount of CO₂ in the atmosphere; But to be practical, all require the availability of large amounts of inexpensive and carbon neutral energy, both as a means to implement these reductive measures, and as a way to prevent the counterproductive continued emissions that would undo any benefits from extracting carbon dioxide from the air.

Nuclear power is a necessary step towards such solutions.

 

[ZiprHead]

B.C. company says it is sucking carbon from air, making fuel

It sounds like spinning straw into gold: suck carbon dioxide from the air where it's contributing to climate change and turn it into fuel for cars, trucks and jets.

A British Columbia company says in newly published research that it's doing just that — and for less than one-third the cost of other companies working on the same technology.

"This isn't a PowerPoint presentation," said Steve Oldham of Carbon Engineering. "It's real."

 

[angelo]

Global Warming isn't Natural - and here's how we know

At this point, I often find that people are prone to proposing that some unknown mechanism exists that scientists haven’t found yet. This is, however, a logical fallacy known as ad hoc. You can’t just make up an unknown mechanism whenever it suits you. If that was valid, then you could always reject any scientific result that you wanted, because it is always possible to propose some unknown mechanism. Similarly, you can’t use the fact that scientists have been wrong before as evidence, nor can you argue that, “there are still things that we don’t understand about the climate, so I don’t have to accept anthropogenic climate change” (that’s an argument from ignorance fallacy). Yes, there are things that we don’t understand, but we understand enough to be very confident that we are causing climate change, and, once again, you can’t just assume that all of our current research is wrong.

The key problem here is the burden of proof. By claiming that there is some other natural mechanism out there, you have just placed the burden of proof squarely on your shoulders. In other words, you must provide actual evidence of such a mechanism. If you cannot do that, then your argument is logically invalid and must be rejected.


Summary/Conclusion
Let’s review, shall we?

We know that it’s not the sun
We know that it’s not Milankovitch cycles
We know that it’s not volcanoes
We know that even when combined, natural causes cannot explain the current warming
We know that CO2 traps heat
We know that increasing CO2 causes more heat to be trapped
We know that CO2 was largely responsible for past climate changes
We know that we have roughly doubled the CO2 in the atmosphere
We know that the earth is trapping more heat now than it used to
We know that including anthropogenic greenhouse gasses in the models is the only way to explain the current warming trend

Failure to explain the 30-40 years of failed catastrophic predictions is noted. Also noted is failure to explain the recent Medieval warming which an attempt by Mann and co to cover up because it contradicted their failed con job among many other scandals and cover ups such as Climategate proves beyond doubt that GW/CC is the biggest con job in the recent history of Western civilasation. If 0 predictions made by so called scientific activists and alarmists have occured, then the science they're using is wrong at best, or deliberately misleading for ulterior motives.
https://canadafreepress.com/article/climate-alarm-failed-prognostications

 

[bilby]

B.C. company says it is sucking carbon from air, making fuel

It sounds like spinning straw into gold: suck carbon dioxide from the air where it's contributing to climate change and turn it into fuel for cars, trucks and jets.

A British Columbia company says in newly published research that it's doing just that — and for less than one-third the cost of other companies working on the same technology.

"This isn't a PowerPoint presentation," said Steve Oldham of Carbon Engineering. "It's real."

The US Navy are also making jet fuel from seawater (and its dissolved carbon dioxide).

It's a viable option on a nuclear powered aircraft carrier, where there's plenty of electricity available, but where storage space for fuel is limited. It could also become a viable source of carbon neutral liquid fuels if replicated onshore using nuclear plants near the coast, although currently it's rather expensive.

As the cycle is carbon neutral, a carbon tax could make it an affordable and attractive option.

 

[bilby]

Global Warming isn't Natural - and here's how we know

At this point, I often find that people are prone to proposing that some unknown mechanism exists that scientists haven’t found yet. This is, however, a logical fallacy known as ad hoc. You can’t just make up an unknown mechanism whenever it suits you. If that was valid, then you could always reject any scientific result that you wanted, because it is always possible to propose some unknown mechanism. Similarly, you can’t use the fact that scientists have been wrong before as evidence, nor can you argue that, “there are still things that we don’t understand about the climate, so I don’t have to accept anthropogenic climate change” (that’s an argument from ignorance fallacy). Yes, there are things that we don’t understand, but we understand enough to be very confident that we are causing climate change, and, once again, you can’t just assume that all of our current research is wrong.

The key problem here is the burden of proof. By claiming that there is some other natural mechanism out there, you have just placed the burden of proof squarely on your shoulders. In other words, you must provide actual evidence of such a mechanism. If you cannot do that, then your argument is logically invalid and must be rejected.


Summary/Conclusion
Let’s review, shall we?

We know that it’s not the sun
We know that it’s not Milankovitch cycles
We know that it’s not volcanoes
We know that even when combined, natural causes cannot explain the current warming
We know that CO2 traps heat
We know that increasing CO2 causes more heat to be trapped
We know that CO2 was largely responsible for past climate changes
We know that we have roughly doubled the CO2 in the atmosphere
We know that the earth is trapping more heat now than it used to
We know that including anthropogenic greenhouse gasses in the models is the only way to explain the current warming trend

Failure to explain the 30-40 years of failed catastrophic predictions is noted. Also noted is failure to explain the recent Medieval warming which an attempt by Mann and co to cover up because it contradicted their failed con job among many other scandals and cover ups such as Climategate proves beyond doubt that GW/CC is the biggest con job in the recent history of Western civilasation. If 0 predictions made by so called scientific activists and alarmists have occured, then the science they're using is wrong at best, or deliberately misleading for ulterior motives.
https://canadafreepress.com/article/climate-alarm-failed-prognostications

Your response completely fails to address the question of why flamingoes stand on one leg, so I am just going to completely ignore it.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

B.C. company says it is sucking carbon from air, making fuel

It sounds like spinning straw into gold: suck carbon dioxide from the air where it's contributing to climate change and turn it into fuel for cars, trucks and jets.

A British Columbia company says in newly published research that it's doing just that — and for less than one-third the cost of other companies working on the same technology.

"This isn't a PowerPoint presentation," said Steve Oldham of Carbon Engineering. "It's real."

The US Navy are also making jet fuel from seawater (and its dissolved carbon dioxide).

It's a viable option on a nuclear powered aircraft carrier, where there's plenty of electricity available, but where storage space for fuel is limited. It could also become a viable source of carbon neutral liquid fuels if replicated onshore using nuclear plants near the coast, although currently it's rather expensive.

As the cycle is carbon neutral, a carbon tax could make it an affordable and attractive option.

Prototype only so far.

 

[angelo]

Failure to explain the 30-40 years of failed catastrophic predictions is noted. Also noted is failure to explain the recent Medieval warming which an attempt by Mann and co to cover up because it contradicted their failed con job among many other scandals and cover ups such as Climategate proves beyond doubt that GW/CC is the biggest con job in the recent history of Western civilasation. If 0 predictions made by so called scientific activists and alarmists have occured, then the science they're using is wrong at best, or deliberately misleading for ulterior motives.
https://canadafreepress.com/article/climate-alarm-failed-prognostications

Your response completely fails to address the question of why flamingoes stand on one leg, so I am just going to completely ignore it.

No defence hey! I thought as much. The trouble with activists is that there are far too many con artists, or snake oil merchants for GW/CC to have any credibility left, if it ever had any.

Then there's this failure in chief! Almost as bad at predictions as GW/CC messiah Al Gore.

https://www.facebook.com/CraigKelly...ilure-with-the-new-year-roll/473769536151019/

 

[angelo]

Obviously a Holocaust d............oops, GW/CC denier with not a shred of evidence?

https://biggeekdad.com/2019/01/10-year-challenge/

 

[TSwizzle]

The Midwest is feeling the full brunt of the global warming I see.

 

[repoman]

The Midwest is feeling the full brunt of the global warming I see.

Ok, using ANY particular weather front for proof or disproof of global warming is intellectually bankrupt.

Try harder next time.

 

[Elixir]

The Midwest is feeling the full brunt of the global warming I see.

Ok, using ANY particular weather front for proof or disproof of global warming is intellectually bankrupt.

Try harder next time.

Actually, swizzle is right. The GW-enhanced temperature gradient is what produces storms, as well as the irregular jetstream pattern that has delivered arctic air to the midwest.
I think he knows that, but cannot resist taking a pretend-ignorant jab at people who support the science.

 

[repoman]

The heat content of the atmosphere, land masses and the ocean is well measured and it is rising in lock step with the modeling of how CO2 and methane trap heat. That is the whole planet, not just the USA.

 

[TSwizzle]

It is now mid-February, and already I have sown 11 species of vegetable. I know, though the seed packets tell me otherwise, that they will flourish. Everything in this country - daffodils, primroses, almond trees, bumblebees, nesting birds - is a month ahead of schedule. And it feels wonderful. Winter is no longer the great grey longing of my childhood. The freezes this country suffered in 1982 and 1963 are, unless the Gulf Stream stops, unlikely to recur.

Teh Gruaniad

Forecasters have issued an amber "danger to life" warning with snow finally set to hit London and southern England today after days of chaos in the rest of the country. The Met Office said snow could hit the capital as early as 2pm today, and last at least seven hours. The news comes as forecasters revealed the UK has seen its coldest temperature in six years, at a freezing -14.4C. The icy temperature was recorded in Braemar this morning.

London Standard

Hilarious.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The Midwest is feeling the full brunt of the global warming I see.

Actually, what the Midwest is experiencing is an effect of global warming.

They are being hit with polar weather that normally stays farther north, but has spilled south from the warming. The cold has been displaced from the arctic, the Earth isn't cooler.

 

[angelo]

The Midwest is feeling the full brunt of the global warming I see.

Ok, using ANY particular weather front for proof or disproof of global warming is intellectually bankrupt.

Try harder next time.

Actually, swizzle is right. The GW-enhanced temperature gradient is what produces storms, as well as the irregular jetstream pattern that has delivered arctic air to the midwest.
I think he knows that, but cannot resist taking a pretend-ignorant jab at people who support the Bogus science.

There, I fixed it for you!

 

[bilby]

The Midwest is feeling the full brunt of the global warming I see.

Actually, what the Midwest is experiencing is an effect of global warming.

They are being hit with polar weather that normally stays farther north, but has spilled south from the warming. The cold has been displaced from the arctic, the Earth isn't cooler.

Indeed. While the US Midwest is freezing, the high arctic is shockingly warm - temperatures at the north pole are often above freezing, which is a very rare thing for January. The cold air that usually sits over the Arctic ocean has been pushed out by warmer air from over the Pacific and Atlantic oceans, and it is spilling over into eastern Siberia and the central United States.

If you leave your freezer door open, you can't use the fact that it's making your toes cold as an indication that your food must still be OK - the colder your toes are, the more likely it is that your ice cream is being ruined.